WASHINGTON (AP)  States that raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more saw a dramatic increase in the number of people killed in traffic accidents, according to a report released Monday by an auto safety group funded by insurers.

The study, compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and based on data collected by the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.

A separate review of six states by the institute found drivers traveling the fastest they have since long before Congress repealed the 55 mph national speed limit in November 1995. In Colorado, which has a speed limit of 75 mph, researchers observed one in four drivers going above 80 mph. In California, where the speed limit is 70 mph, one in five drivers was clocked at 80 mph.

The New Zealand government agency estimated the death rate for the 22 states that raised their speed limits on rural interstates in 1995 and 1996.

The 10 states that raised limits to 75 mph  all in the Midwest and West  experienced 38% more deaths per million miles driven than states with 65-mph limits, or approximately 780 more deaths.

The 12 states that raised their limits to 70 mph  including California, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri  saw a 35% increase, or 1,100 additional deaths.

Geographical differences in states may have contributed to the numbers. For example, the report said, drivers may go faster in Western states where cities are farther apart. The report didn't examine the effects of other trends, such as the increasing number of sport utility vehicles on the road then.

The Insurance Institute said there is no doubt, however, that when speed limits increase so do deaths. When the national speed limit of 55 mph was adopted 1974, fatality rates dropped, the Insurance Institute's chief scientist Allan Williams said.

The Insurance Institute's separate study of speeds in Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Colorado and California also found that when rates are raised on rural interstates, speeding increased on urban interstates.

Average travel speeds on urban interstates in Atlanta, Boston and Washington were the same as or higher than on rural interstates near those cities, even though the speed limits on those urban interstates were 55 mph. In Atlanta, 78% of drivers on one urban interstate exceeded 70 mph, the report found.

,,, New Zealand's LTSAdraws on best practices from around the world in order to reduce road fatalities. Many aspects of their work equate to what's carried out by the DOT. An outward looking approach to solving this has meant comparing data from Sweden, England, the US, Australia and many other countries as a means of working out shortcuts and implementing initiatives to bring the road toll down. New Zealand has a total population of 4 million people.

The study, compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and based on data collected by the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.

It's "a death sentence for a lot of Americans on the highways." That's how Joan Claybrook, president of the Naderite group Public Citizen, characterized the Senate voted to end the national speed limit for cars and let the states again choose their speeds.

The White House has joined the cry, as has Transportation Secretary Federico Pe¤a who estimates eliminating the national speed limit will cost an additional 5,000 lives a year. It does seem intuitive that higher speed limits means more deaths. After all, the faster the speed at which two objects collide, the harder the impact and the more things go snap, crackle, and pop. It's also true that the faster you're going when you hit the brakes, the longer it takes to stop.

The problem with applying these two physical laws and coming up with 4,000 more traffic deaths annually is that people are not simple crash dummies--though to look at the decline in SAT scores that may not be true for long.

For one thing, people forced to drive slowly may be less alert and aware than they would be at higher speeds. Speaking from experience, one drives with amazing alertness on the German autobahn when keeping up with most of the traffic at 100 miles an hour and yet regularly forced to move aside by cars blinking their headlights because they want to pass at 150.

Still, low-speed proponents claim they have figures to prove their case. They say, for example, that death rate on the nation's roads declined dramatically after the federal speed limit was imposed in 1974. Yes, but death rates have always been declining. In 1925, 35 Americans died per hundred million miles driven. By the first full year of the 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit that was 3.45. Today it is less than two, even though the great majority of states have pushed their limits up to 65. There are many reasons for this decline, but mainly it's because cars and roads just keeping getting safer.

Only in 1991, THREE YEARS after states began pushing their limits back to 65, did the fatalities-per-miles driven rate inch up, only to fall again the next year. Preliminary data shows that 1994 will probably have fewer deaths per mile than any year in history.

National speed limit proponents also note that almost one-third of highway fatalities are "attributed to"speeding. But this means little. If a driver is rip-roaring drunk, swerves all over the highway, and then finally has an accident while doing 75, this gets categorized as "attributed to speeding." Reckless drivers and drunks tend to have accidents and to speed, so it all gets wrapped together. Finally there is an oft-cited study showing that after some states increased their limits from 55 to 65, accident deaths went up on those roads.

But another study commissioned by the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety showed that looking statewide, states which increased their speed limits saw fatalities FALL by an average of 3.4 to 5.1 percent. The study author, economist Charles Lave of the University of California at Irvine, said part of the drop appeared to be from drivers switching away from back roads to safer freeways now that they could drive faster on them. Also highway patrols shifted resources away from pulling over safe but speeding drivers and towards catching unsafe drivers.

Lave also speculated that reducing "speed variance" might have made the highways safer. Speed variance means vehicles passing each other--the most likely time for a crash to occur on an interstate highway. By eliminating an artificially low speed limit and allowing drivers to drive closer to what feels natural, raising speed limits can reduce variance, thereby reducing passing and crashes and deaths.

Indeed, an earlier AAA report looking at a number of different studies confirmed "accident rates increase with increasing speed variance for all classes of roads." This is why it wasn't smart for the Senate bill to maintain the national speed limit for commercial trucks and buses, effectively ensuring they will go slower than cars. What's worst about the national speed limit's approach to saving lives is that it uses a shotgun approach, instead of dealing with specific problems. For example, drivers under the age of 20, for example, are involved in more than twice as many fatal accidents as those over 20. Such a disparity results in part from a system that makes getting a driver's license far easier than passing a high school final exam. Make driving a privilege instead of a right and watch traffic deaths plummet.

Finally, even were it conclusively proven that the national speed limits saves lives, it would not be the end of the matter. Why not just lower speed limits all the way down to 20? For that matter, why not mandate that we all drive armored cars?

Because all safety regulations involve tradeoffs. A speed limit is a tradeoff between allowing people and goods to get to their destinations quickly and the possibility of more accidents. Contrast this with seat-belt laws, which impose a real but tiny inconvenience and reap a tremendous award.

In any case, why congressmen from tiny Rhode Island are better able to make the speed-versus-time decision for huge states like Texas is beyond comprehension. Let's let the states set the speed limits where they think they belong and then focus on more useful laws the states can implement that will reduce the deaths on our nation's roads.

As I recall high school physics, force increases with the square of velocity

The primary cause of accidents on the highways in the western US is drivers dozing off. This used to be called highway hypnosis. States found that by increasing speed limits, drivers were less likely to doze off on long trips.

They abondoned highway hypnosis when trial lawyers complained that juries were reluctant to award damages against drivers who fell asleep at the wheel as opposed to violating a traffic law.

Insurance companies like to use highway death statistics to show that lower speeds and safer cars lower highway deaths.

The lower death rates they champion are directly attributable to the Viet Nam war, not lower speed limits or safer cars.

If you are a Kiwi and female and single would you marry me. If you are a Kiwi and male or a female who is married would you please considered adopting me. I would do anything to get back down to New Zealand. It has got to be the most beautiful country in world with some of the neatest people.

PS: How can anyone in New Zealand consentrate long enough to do a long study when the average family drinks 74 gallons of Scotch Whiskey each year?

62
posted on 11/24/2003 3:07:53 PM PST
by U S Army EOD
(When the EOD technician screws up, he is always the first to notice.)

- More than one-third of all deaths for people aged 15 through 20 resulted from motor vehicle crashes (Vital Statistics Mortality Data -1998, Centers For Disease Control and Prevention). In 2000, more than one-third of these motor vehicle fatalities involved alcohol. More than two-thirds of the youth motor vehicle occupant fatalities did not use a seat belt or motorcycle helmet.

TRENDS

- The population of the United States, ages 15 through 20, decreased 2 percent from 24.3 million in 1982 to 23.9 million in 2000. During this period, motor vehicle fatalities for this age group decreased by 25 percent while alcohol-related fatalities decreased by 57 percent

- Despite this overall decline in the youth population between 1982 and 2000, this population started to increase in 1993. In fact, during the last 7 years, the youth population has increased by 14 percent; interestingly, during this period youth motor vehicle fatalities increased by 8 percent while youth alcohol-related fatalities remained constant.

- From 1990 through 2000, approximately 900 fewer young people died in traffic crashes (a 13 percent reduction) with approximately 1,200 fewer fatalities in alcohol-related crashes (a 34 percent reduction). In fact, the alcohol-related fatality rate has been cut from 16 to 10 deaths per 100,000 youth, a rate that has remained stable since 1995.

- Since 1989, fewer than half of youth motor vehicle fatalities were alcohol-related. Drinking and driving is no longer the leading cause of death for teenagers; motor vehicle crashes, however, remain so.

- In 2000, youth motor vehicle fatalities increased slightly from the previous year. Youth alcohol-related fatalities, however, increased by nearly 3 percent and have increased every year since 1997.

PS: How can anyone in New Zealand concentrate long enough to do a long study when the average family drinks 74 gallons of Scotch Whiskey each year?

,,, you've stumbled over the downstream benefits of the welfare state [LOL!]. We lost the America's Cup and we didn't win the rugby world cup, so most of us are feeling very sorry for ourselves right now. However, summer's on it's way. If you do come back down here, let me know and I'll stack more Tui in the fridge for you. You'll always be welcome.

"Does the increasing number of vehicles on the road figure in? The correlation between increased speed and number of deaths is flawed. There are too many other factors not mentioned here as probables."

Absolutely. The increase in traffic across the country is astounding. States are looking at widening antiquated interstates, and creating lanes for trucks, to lighten the number of vehicles.

. . an introduced species of kangaroo, called the Palmer wallaby, is being shot in high numbers because they're classed as pests.

Interesting. We just went to a nearby zoo and the Palmer wallaby was on display. Are these animals any challenge to a hunter (varmiter) or are they too tolerant of man and so no challenge? Are they good for anything - hides or meat? Why were they introduced? Inquiring minds (a varmiter) want to know. I'm looking for any excuse to visit!

,,, not sure when they were introduced but I'd guess the late 1800s or early 1900s. Possums (different to the US sort) were introduced too, from Aussie. They run at around 70 million now and are pests too. One thing you should know... New Zealand has a 365 day hunting season here with no cost for permits. All sorts of deer and even Himalayan Thar can be shot without retrictions on numbers. In January I'm taking on a small business close to a range of mountains which will mean I'll be able to get into hunting a lot easier than in the past. Bang!

The mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from motor vehicle crashes.

In 2002, the Nation's crash fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel reached an historic low of 1.51.

Although this significant event is the result of much progress in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our Nation's highways, total fatalities increased just slightly in 2002, reaching the highest level since 1990.

So, with an increasing population we will naturally get a larger "total fatalities" figure if the fatality rate per mile per person remains roughly the same; obviously, this figure is going down.

some here have posted about the conflict of interest between the people that are doing the study. the insurance and local police forces and 'catch speeders', those evil people doing 65-80mph, have nothing but a mob mentality in extorting your money. many places show (ie simply looking at the autobahn) that higher speed limits makes safer driving. here is a great organization that fights this machine.... http://www.motorists.org

75
posted on 11/24/2003 3:36:17 PM PST
by KOZ.
(i'm so bad i should be in detention)

Now that is not completely true, we were not allowed to bag but 18 mallards per day during duck season, so there is some control. And in some places you are not allowed to shoot deer from helicopters although you can chase them down the mountain in one to the area where everybody else is waiting with the rifles.

76
posted on 11/24/2003 3:40:36 PM PST
by U S Army EOD
(When the EOD technician screws up, he is always the first to notice.)

"It's the other 22% getting in our way that causes the accidents. If you don't do at least 75 mph on I85 through Atlanta, you're going to get run over. That's one of the things I love about this town."

Me too. I have a cousin who is an Atlanta city traffic cop. He don't write any tickets below 80.

It's the new Ford Kiwi, a new sporty metro that great on looks and on gas milage. It's hip! It's new! It's NOW! And it's under $20,000. The new Ford Kiwi-- just watch this bird go! Have you driven a Ford lately? (

And coming soon: The Toyota "Cantilope")

78
posted on 11/24/2003 3:46:37 PM PST
by yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")

Take the damn speedometer out of the car. That, and get rid of cruise control. Return the driver to being an integral part of the operation of the vehicle.

Seems many people spend more time behind the wheel concerned about how they're driving (and, in an equal number of cases, the exact opposite), as opposed to the act of driving itself. If you yank that infernal needle out of the dash, most sane people will travel at a pace comfortable to them and their abilities, leaving them to focus on their environment and potential hazards, as opposed to constantly taking their eyes off the road (bad thing) to check their speed.

determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.

Four years... times 22 states... 1880 divided by 88... that's 22.3636 more per state per year... less than two more deaths per month per state... less than one ACCIDENTAL death every two weeks. THIS is the minutiae that they are arguing about? They'll curtail freedom further for 0.43 ACCIDENTAL deaths per week for an entire state?!?

So when do they start blotting out the sun for all of those unintended skin cancer deaths?

The study, compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and based on data collected by the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.

>>You know, the guys who have to go (at least) 20 mph over the speed limit and continually weave in and out of traffic,

While this can be the fault of the faster driver, it is also caused by idiots adhering to the posted limit while travelling in the fast lane, and never moving right. Said idiots are almost invariably driving minivans or SUVs and talking on cell phones. Slower traffic keep right!, and those guys wanting to get somewhere won't have to weave / pass the slow pokes on the right.

The study, compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and based on data collected by the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.

1880 more than what? The other 28? What are the states? Apples/Oranges at best.

92
posted on 11/24/2003 7:06:40 PM PST
by TankerKC
(Member since before you! I win!)

But she remained devoted to federally imposed safety regulations. She opposed Reagan's raising of the 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit, pushed for a mandatory third rear brake light (which had no lasting effect on auto safety), and bribed states to raise their drinking age to 21. Legal developments arguably left her no choice but to mandate airbags for cars -- but she did so enthusiastically. It was as if her personal obsession with control and caution spilled over into her policymaking. ``In all my efforts to promote safer transportation, I tried to respect individual choice,'' she wrote in Unlimited Partners. But airbags had to be designed just so; speed limits could not be raised; people wouldn't buckle up on their own. (Mrs. Dole also supported fuel-efficiency standards that had the perverse effect of taking more lives than airbags save.)

Um, the National Review is conservative enough for most isn't it? Thought so.

However, the lazy-assed state troopers who sit on the side of the road on clear sunny days (God forbid they should spoil the crease on those trousers by doing it in the rain) blasting away with their radar guns and lasers are doing precisely nothing about any of this.

Not only that, but the bastards are really making it more dangerous for the rest of us by doing so.

Whenever a driver sees Barney sitting alongside a road, most instinctively hit their breaks, since they don't know exactly how fast they are going relative to the limit. This causes lots of problems, not the least of which is causing cars to bunch up together.

Yea, right. Show me where any major highway around atlanta gets over 15 mph during rush hour.

It's been a couple of years since I've been to Atlanta, but I remember that if you weren't doing 80 MPH, you'd have so many cars passing (on both the right and the left), and cars tailgating that you would cause a problem for other drivers.

I think in Georgia they can arrest you for going 15 over the limit, so drivers are forced to choose between a potential arrest and driving safely.

My experience is no one cares if you're under 80mph in ATL metro, on a limited-access road. Except maybe for Doraville on the 1 mile of I-285 that's in their jurisdiction. Always slow for Doraville. And watch out for Duluth, Roswell, and Alpharetta cops on the surface streets, but you shouldn't be speeding much on those. Unlike the Interstates, that is unsafe.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.